If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Read the writingd of Justice Marshall. Of Alexis D’Toqueville. Any other contemporary. Like this guy:

Great confusion about the words democracy, aristocracy, monarchy...Democracy in my sense, where the whole power of the government in the people, whether exercised by themselves or by representatives, chosen by them either mediately or immediately and legally accountable to them...Consequence, the proposed government a representative democracy...Constitution revocable and alterable by the people. This representative democracy as far as is consistent with its genius has all the features of good government.”

Alexander Hamilton, on the Constitution, 1788

Do some studying. It’s really okay the founding fathers were not in lock-step. It’s okay today, too, despite what you dear leader may say.

Wasn't D'Toqueville the one who also said that democracy contains the seeds for its own destruction?

Not for nothing - but I have seen many on here argue that some issues, such as bonds, tax increases, etc., should be subject to a vote of the people. While plebiscites are rare in this Country, surely those who argue for them must realize that a plebiscite is totally foreign to the concept of a republic.

Saw an interesting sci-fi show about a spaceship that landed on a totally democratic planet. Everyone had a digital device and the entire population voted on everything. ANd I mean from what you had for breakfast to whom should be put to death for being "unliked" by enough people.

Any time you have a true democracy, everyone gets to vote on every decision made. Takes too much time and effort for us so we elect people who are supposed to represent us. But then they really only represent those who elected them, and that is also why we have an electoral college. So that a majority cannot crap all over the minority. If we didn't have one, only NY and California need show up at the polls. Which would be great for democrats... But, alas, we have that pesky EC in the way so that liberals cannot dictate how and what the rest of us people think and do. You know, us uneducated bumpkins that hug our guns and Bibles and live in fly over country.

Not for nothing - but I have seen many on here argue that some issues, such as bonds, tax increases, etc., should be subject to a vote of the people. While plebiscites are rare in this Country, surely those who argue for them must realize that a plebiscite is totally foreign to the concept of a republic.

For bonds and tax increases on a local level, maybe, but I don't recall any major participant on here advocating for such things on a national level.

Let me see if I can explain this a little clearer:
A Republic is a democracy, but not every democracy is a Republic.

This is getting to be like explaining geometry to an eight grader:
A square is like a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.
A circle is a loop, but not every loop is a circle.

Generally, this isn't an argument that I would bother with,
the fact that the government is completely and utterly restricted
in its actions, by the Constitution AND our Inalienable Rights,
and that all laws out side of that contract are void, is much more
important to me:

But it seems like a lawyer would know the difference between
a democracy and a Republic. The fact that you will argue, without
acknowledging the difference, and which one we are, is very
troubling, considering that you hold yourself out to be a lawyer.

I mean, if America is replete with lawyers that can't get the basics
of our foundation right, how sorry is the profession that is supposed
to be guarding our citizens against the tyranny of a government
of men, rather than a government of law.

Well, most times, lawyers have a hard time understanding the concept of God given rights. Judicial types tend to think that all things must flow from them, and that there are no things that do not. Or that they have some sort of power over what God has given people. I think we have seen lately that this concept is not taken to heart by Americans very much. Tell a Texan he can't own a gun and watch the fight. And, it seems that idea has spread around a bit, especially when some elected windbag decides it is convenient to rein in on peoples God given rights.

The problem with God-given rights to some people is that, if those people are atheists, then there is no "God" to 'give' those rights.
Then there's the "interpretation" of those rights. There was a time. long ago, when many of those rights were believed to be applicable SOLELY to white men, not blacks or other races. The phrase "all men are created equal" was not applied to certain groups back then, according to some Government officials...but THAT was a long time ago.

Last edited by gnatsum; May 26th, 2020 at 4:36 PM.
Reason: typinmty mewistakes

"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." 'Argument Clinic', Monty Python's Flying Circus

Speaking of rights, Mike Tirico, a sports announcer does this "The more you know" commercial on NBC about the right to education. He starts off by saying we all have the basic rights to food water, and shelter. Did I miss something? I thought those were needs. I think there is a difference. Anyway here is the spot, maybe I am AFU, I dont know....